Monika Gimbutaitė. Presidential elections, culture and longing for empty political promises | Culture

They hardly pay attention to the cultural sector. Even the official, demonstrative one that does not create any concrete commitment.

Maybe it’s good? It could be argued that such internal policy issues are not within the will of the President’s institution, and in the current geopolitical circumstances, attention should be paid even more to foreign policy and national defense.

And I would tend to agree with this position. If only in the electoral programs presented in the publication of the Central Electoral Commission, the candidates did not also speak about domestic politics: education, health care, agriculture, social policy, tax system, courts, pensions, family issues, etc.

This applies to almost all candidates, with the exception of Ingrid Šimonytė, who consistently focuses on foreign policy in her political campaign, and, surprisingly, Eduardas Vaitkės. However, he gives steam and speaks out on various life issues in a more detailed version of the program presented on his website (some of the candidates did not seem to bother to submit it this year).

And there is poverty in the electoral programs of culture. Ignas Vēgėlė mentions a culturally growing country in the program, while Dainius Žalimas states in the program presented on his electoral page that “a healthy, educated, cultured and creative person is the basis of the country’s successful future”.

Both candidates do not elaborate on their claims, but judging by these formulations, “culture” and “creativity” seem not to be clearly formulated, culture-oriented goals, but convenient keywords. However, such abstract political rhetoric should probably no longer be surprising – similar to how the “political culture” card is always drawn in debates, without specifying which concept of culture is resisted and which one is moving towards.

Still, even five years ago, there were more candidates for cultural crumbs in the programs. From attention to language or national culture to Gitan Nausėda’s statement that in his vision of the welfare state priority will be given to education and culture in general. True, to a large extent these promises were also slick and far from addressing the fundamental problems of the sector. As the history of the last five years shows, they remained unfulfilled.

Longing for empty promises may seem absurd, but when there are none, it’s even more unsettling.

Longing for empty promises may seem absurd, but when there are none, it’s even more unsettling.

Looking at the election programs of the candidates, it seems that the culture, which was never at the epicenter of political life, began to balance on the sidelines. It almost no longer comes into view, neither as an area requiring real political solutions, nor as a valuable, ideologically or formally important concept, nor as a lazy method to take a certain part of the electorate.

Because if you choose to name the bigger and smaller concerns of the state’s internal politics, it is eloquent to completely forget about culture – a sector for the survival of which state policy is simply necessary, and which is sometimes given a paper priority that still does not materialize in any way.

If we look further into the election programs, the relationship of the candidates with culture does not improve a bit. The media, which usually ask questions about culture only as entertainment, allowing to get to know the candidates informally, does not help here either. Sure, it might be fun to talk about Taylor Swift or One Republic, but questions like cultural funding or the network of cultural institutions would be useful as a balance. That balance would sometimes be beneficial for the voters, who are already listening to the candidates’ answers to the question about Taiwan’s representation in Lithuania for the 10th time – I’m not saying that the topic is not important, but today’s answer will hardly be different from yesterday’s.

Of course, candidates also include certain “cultural elements” in their campaigns.

The Facebook page of the Presidential Chancellery, as has already been noticed on social networks, has recently become, probably not by chance, the yearbook of First Lady Diana Nausėdienė’s travels around Lithuania: from visits to Third Century universities or meetings with representatives of social enterprises, to anniversaries of dance groups and visits to cultural organizations. Meanwhile, G. Nausėda himself is trying to lighten the image of a book collector formed during the last election and this time he chooses popular culture events more often – for example, participation in “Different Conversations”.

Meanwhile, G. Nausėda himself is trying to lighten the image of a book collector formed during the last election and this time he chooses popular culture events more often.

I. Šimonytė began to attend cultural events more often as the elections approached, and her cultural panorama also changed a little: after 2019. Metallicos, who became the symbol of the campaign, this year are followed by sophisticated conversations at the presentation of Mantos Adomėnas’s book. On the candidate’s Facebook account, you can also find, for example, the impressions of a visit to cultural institutions in Panevėžys (of course, with a few named cultural policy issues). And G. Jeglinskas liked to visit museums during the election campaign.

It seems that culture still remains one of the tools for creating a political image for candidates. A premiere, a visit to an exhibition, a photo with a book – it is completely understandable why politicians (well, at least some of them) want to present themselves through symbols of cultural life, shape their image as cultured, intellectual or youthful candidates and thus become closer to their electorate.

These movements would not seem flawed at all, if alongside their representation, both during and after the election campaign, there was a deeper focus on culture as an integral part of political (!) life. For a culture that requires not only happy ones visits, but also analysis of systemic problems and political will.

Unfortunately, for the time being, culture more often remains a representational facade, and escapes from political visions, even for those who promise to prioritize it.

Unfortunately, for the time being, culture more often remains a representational facade, and escapes from political visions, even for those who promise to prioritize it. And this is a worrying sign.

Whether it is a symptom, we will see when we read the programs of political parties in the upcoming Seimas elections. It’s hard to believe, but while trying to control expectations, I hope that if not concrete commitments, then at least immodest sounding slogans await us. Today, it’s starting to look like it’s better than nothing.